Atheists don't exists. They're a myth.

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.

..heh, heh...we exist, I assure you. The evidence is this newsgroup
full of profound atheist thinkers who kick your sorry ass on a daily
basis.

Post by JTEM
Are you a hypocrite?
Are you stupid?
Are you an immature child, parroting "Arguments"
he could never hope to comprehend?
If not, show us the evidence.
WARNING: You are setting a standard here. If personal
claims are evidence, then God exists. If writing are
evidence, then God exists. After all, there's TONS of
such evidence in the case of God.
So, again, are you a hypocrite? Are you stupid? Are
you painfully immature? If not, produce your evidence
for the existence of atheists.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164712558663

TheRealMccoy

2017-08-28 16:23:55 UTC

Post by John Locke
..heh, heh...we exist, I assure you. The evidence is this newsgroup
full of profound atheist thinkers who kick your sorry ass on a daily
basis.

Facts are, you are a liar, and are not an atheist.
You hide behind a nym as a govt puppet agent knowing full well behind the scenes you are waging a war against a very real deity you know exists.
Stop lying all the time online everyday like you do.

Malte Runz

2017-08-28 17:44:04 UTC

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:23:55 -0700 (PDT), TheRealMccoy

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by John Locke
..heh, heh...we exist, I assure you. The evidence is this newsgroup
full of profound atheist thinkers who kick your sorry ass on a daily
basis.

Facts are, you are a liar, and are not an atheist.
You hide behind a nym ...

That's how I spell 'hypocrisy'.

(snip)

--
Malte Runz

TheRealMccoy

2017-08-28 17:49:00 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:23:55 -0700 (PDT), TheRealMccoy

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by John Locke
..heh, heh...we exist, I assure you. The evidence is this newsgroup
full of profound atheist thinkers who kick your sorry ass on a daily
basis.

Facts are, you are a liar, and are not an atheist.
You hide behind a nym ...

That's how I spell 'hypocrisy'.

Michael C Yost

What is your name liar, or should i tell them for you, pig?

JTEM

2017-08-28 21:07:59 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
That's how I spell 'hypocrisy'.

Hypocrisy is insisting that self reports prove
that someone is an atheist, but not that someone
had an experience with the divine.

Hint: You both accept self reports as compelling
AND reject them as irrelevant, all depending upon
what you need to support your jerking knee.

Also: If you can't prove that there's so much as
a single atheist alive, or that one has ever lived,
how dare you pretend that failure to prove God TO
YOUR SLIDING-SCALE SATISFACTION means anything?

You're narcissism atop hypocrisy...

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164712558663

JTEM

2017-08-28 16:28:45 UTC

Post by John Locke
..heh, heh...we exist, I assure you. The evidence is this newsgroup
full of profound atheist thinkers who

You're arguing that personal testimony is evidence.

Honestly, did you not read what I said, or did you
simply fail to understand it?

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164712558663

Yap Honghor

2017-08-29 01:15:17 UTC

Post by John Locke
..heh, heh...we exist, I assure you. The evidence is this newsgroup
full of profound atheist thinkers who

You're arguing that personal testimony is evidence.
Honestly, did you not read what I said, or did you
simply fail to understand.

Your failure is quite apparent.
The so called personal testimony is not done by us, idiot.

JTEM

2017-08-29 01:54:41 UTC

Post by JTEM
You're arguing that personal testimony is evidence.
Honestly, did you not read what I said, or did you
simply fail to understand.

Your

I repeat: Did you not read what I said or did you
fail to understand it?

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164712558663

Yap Honghor

2017-08-29 06:36:51 UTC

Post by JTEM
You're arguing that personal testimony is evidence.
Honestly, did you not read what I said, or did you
simply fail to understand.

Your

I repeat: Did you not read what I said or did you
fail to understand it?

I know you are wrong all the time...there is no connection with reading or not reading, understanding or not!!!!

JTEM

2017-08-29 17:04:11 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
I know

Please, that's not funny.

Either you are consistent in your evidence --
what you accept, what weight you give it -- or
you couldn't give a shit less about science.

You're a partisan, a believer defending his
ideology/faith.

...and even THAT is probably granting you
way too much credit. You portray a partisan,
but for all I know you're some shut-in trolling
for the negative attention that has always passed
for love in his life.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/129378885708

Kevrob

2017-08-29 18:02:44 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
I know

Please, that's not funny.
Either you are consistent in your evidence --
what you accept, what weight you give it -- or
you couldn't give a shit less about science.
You're a partisan, a believer defending his
ideology/faith.
...and even THAT is probably granting you
way too much credit. You portray a partisan,
but for all I know you're some shut-in trolling
for the negative attention that has always passed
for love in his life.

If you don't believe self-described atheists when they say
they don't believe in ghod(z), by the same token, we atheists
can refuse to believe that those who claim to have faith aren't
just faking it.

Given how socially acceptable believing is, and how disreputable
atheism is, which makes more sense: that there are actual non-believers
faking belief for social advantage or to avoid persecution, or that
self-proclaimed non-believers are inviting the majority to think ill
of them and persecute them? It would be easier for the latter to just
stop attending church and be thought "bad Christians," "bad Muslims," etc.
Such backsliders can be persuaded to reform and mend their ways, eventually.

Perhaps the first bunch were never "real atheists," just going through
a period of youthful rebellion.

We know of some atheists who reconcile with a religion or convert
after never having believed. Consider famous former atheist Antony Flew,
who became a deist before he died. He was the son of a Methodist minister.
So, honest intellectual change of mind, or reversion to a comfortable myth
learned as a child?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

People have certainly argued over just what it is Flew believed, or
didn't, before his death. At the very least, he never "came to Jesus."

My "youthful rebellion" has lasted nearly 4 decades. I don't have
any youth left to do any rebelling, though I try to stay "young at heart."
If anyone hears me calling for a ghod on my deathbed, I expect that to
be the result of dementia or hypoxia.

[quote]

Modern scientists consider deathbed phenomena and visions to be hallucinations

[/quote]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deathbed_phenomena

Kevin R

Christopher A. Lee

2017-08-29 18:22:28 UTC

Post by Kevrob
We know of some atheists who reconcile with a religion or convert
after never having believed. Consider famous former atheist Antony Flew,
who became a deist before he died. He was the son of a Methodist minister.
So, honest intellectual change of mind, or reversion to a comfortable myth
learned as a child?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
People have certainly argued over just what it is Flew believed, or
didn't, before his death. At the very least, he never "came to Jesus."
My "youthful rebellion" has lasted nearly 4 decades. I don't have
any youth left to do any rebelling, though I try to stay "young at heart."
If anyone hears me calling for a ghod on my deathbed, I expect that to
be the result of dementia or hypoxia.

He was targeted by evangelicals in old age, when he was losing his
faculties, and fell for the lies of a glib conman who misrepresented
the state of modern scientific understanding and combined this with
the argument from ignorance. Basically the old first cause nonsense.

"You don't have any answer, so it must be God".

A decade earlier, he would have ripped him to shreds over the argument
from ignorance.

And as a professor of philosophy, he would have flunked any of his
students who used it.

Kevrob

2017-08-30 16:40:46 UTC

He was targeted by evangelicals in old age, when he was losing his
faculties, and fell for the lies of a glib conman who misrepresented
the state of modern scientific understanding and combined this with
the argument from ignorance. Basically the old first cause nonsense.
"You don't have any answer, so it must be God".
A decade earlier, he would have ripped him to shreds over the argument
from ignorance.
And as a professor of philosophy, he would have flunked any of his
students who used it.

I think that's a fair reading of the situation, but I am
admittedly biased against the old "deathbed conversion" as
so often it is

a) an outright lie

b) exaggerated by Partisans for a sect.
The deism that Flew accepted is nothing like
the theism of fundamentalist Protestantism,
Catholicism or Anglicanism

c) the result of diminished capacity: the previously
mentioned onset of dementia.

Kevin R

Kurt Nicklas

2017-08-30 16:58:17 UTC

He was targeted by evangelicals in old age, when he was losing his
faculties, and fell for the lies of a glib conman who misrepresented
the state of modern scientific understanding and combined this with
the argument from ignorance. Basically the old first cause nonsense.
"You don't have any answer, so it must be God".
A decade earlier, he would have ripped him to shreds over the argument
from ignorance.
And as a professor of philosophy, he would have flunked any of his
students who used it.

I think that's a fair reading of the situation, but I am
admittedly biased against the old "deathbed conversion" as
so often it is
a) an outright lie
b) exaggerated by Partisans for a sect.
The deism that Flew accepted is nothing like
the theism of fundamentalist Protestantism,
Catholicism or Anglicanism
c) the result of diminished capacity: the previously
mentioned onset of dementia.
Kevin R

"Only according to your insane delusions, child murdering paedophile."
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 7/31/17

JTEM

2017-09-07 18:40:37 UTC

Post by Kevrob
I think that's a fair reading of the situation

There could be no stronger condemnation of an
assessment than your words above.

At this point you're not even the blind leading
the blind. More like the blind leading the
blind AND crippled...

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/search/rubbish

Kevrob

2017-09-07 19:04:20 UTC

Post by Kevrob
I think that's a fair reading of the situation

There could be no stronger condemnation of an
assessment than your words above.

No reasoning, just smarmy invective, as always.

Kevin R

JTEM

2017-09-07 23:59:28 UTC

Post by Kevrob
No reasoning

What mental disorder is causing you to "Argue"
against the obvious?

There is precisely ZERO evidence for the
existence of atheists, according to the
collective. The collective rejects self
reports, and without self reports there is
NOTHING supporting the existence of atheists.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/search/asshole

JTEM

2017-09-07 18:39:02 UTC

Post by Kevrob
We know of some atheists who

You've never established that any atheists exist.

Please prove your claim that atheists exists using
hard evidence, as you insist that personal claims/
testimony is insubmissible.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
He was targeted by

You're replying to a straw man with a psychotic
episode. Amazing.

Well, pretending that you're clever is way easier
for the collective than actually being clever...

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/search/rubbish

Kevrob

2017-09-07 19:01:11 UTC

Please prove your claim that atheists exists .....

Who takes someone seriously when they repeatedly
get subject/verb agreement in number so wrong?

Kevin R

JTEM

2017-09-08 00:01:35 UTC

Post by Kevrob
Who takes someone seriously when

You are either arguing that self reports
(testimony) IS compelling evidence, in
which case you just "Proved" that God is
real, or you admit that there is ZERO
evidence to support the existence of atheists.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/search/asshole

John Locke

2017-09-08 01:08:11 UTC

Post by Kevrob
Who takes someone seriously when

..your logic, as per ususal, is indemonstrable.

Christopher A. Lee

2017-09-08 16:12:48 UTC

On Thu, 07 Sep 2017 18:08:11 -0700, John Locke

Post by Kevrob
Who takes someone seriously when

..your logic, as per ususal, is indemonstrable.

Does he seriously not understand why we realised he is seriously
mentally ill, years ago?

Theists exist.

We take their word when they say they are theist.

But the certifiable lunatic's analogy equates the unevidenced and
disputed, with the everyday, evidenced and undisputed - for which he
now demands evidence that would convince a solipsist.

Does he seriously fool himself?

If so, he's seriously retarded.

If not, and it it's a psychopathic game, he is seriously mentally ill.

JTEM

2017-09-09 16:15:57 UTC

Post by John Locke
..your logic

The only thing "Illogical" here would be expecting
the likes of you to "Get" consistency.

You reject personal claims/testimony. You don't
accept personal testimony as evidence. Well, the
only "Evidence" for the existence of atheists
is personal testimony -- WHAT PEOPLE SAY.

That's it. There is nothing else.

So, by your own standard there is no evidence for
atheists. Yet you believe in atheists.

But it gets worse...

Atheists aren't supposed to be supernatural. They're
supposed to be ordinary human beings. You can't support
the existence of ordinary people -- you have no
evidence for them -- yet you tinkle down your leg in
excitement over the fact that theists have no "Proof"
of God.

By your own standard you are beneath theists!

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165120263988

Davej

2017-09-12 17:54:09 UTC

Post by JTEM
You reject personal claims/testimony. You don't
accept personal testimony as evidence. Well, the
only "Evidence" for the existence of atheists
is personal testimony -- WHAT PEOPLE SAY.

Don't play dumb. We don't reject personal claims/testimony
for mundane claims -- for example we don't reject the
existence of theists. The theists claim to believe in
fairies and we ACCEPT the fact that they believe in fairies.

We reject personal claims/testimony for extraordinary events.
If you claim you were abducted by aliens or had a personal
conversation with god(s) or Bigfoot or a dead person then
you need some better evidence.

Gronk

2017-09-13 03:45:26 UTC

Post by Davej

Post by JTEM
You reject personal claims/testimony. You don't
accept personal testimony as evidence. Well, the
only "Evidence" for the existence of atheists
is personal testimony -- WHAT PEOPLE SAY.

Don't play dumb. We don't reject personal claims/testimony
for mundane claims -- for example we don't reject the
existence of theists. The theists claim to believe in
fairies and we ACCEPT the fact that they believe in fairies.
We reject personal claims/testimony for extraordinary events.
If you claim you were abducted by aliens or had a personal
conversation with god(s) or Bigfoot or a dead person then
you need some better evidence.

Yap Honghor

2017-09-08 09:33:27 UTC

Post by Kevrob
We know of some atheists who

You've never established that any atheists exist.

We know we exist, not your business.

Post by JTEM
Please prove your claim that atheists exists using
hard evidence, as you insist that personal claims/
testimony is insubmissible.

Oh, so now it is about testimony?
I thought you have lost your battle long ago?

Post by Christopher A. Lee
He was targeted by

You're replying to a straw man with a psychotic
episode. Amazing.

You must be referring to yourself as a straw man?

Post by JTEM
Well, pretending that you're clever is way easier
for the collective than actually being clever...

What collective you are talking about?
You mean the believers in their collective congregation in praying insanely every Sunday for no apparent reason?

JTEM

2017-09-07 18:35:09 UTC

Your reading comprehension SUCKS...

Post by JTEM
Either you are consistent in your evidence --
what you accept, what weight you give it -- or
you couldn't give a shit less about science.

If you don't believe self-described atheists when they

Your mental illness is fooling you into thinking that
I said something that I never said...

It's not about what you believe, it's what is and is
not "Evidence."

YOU insist that personal claims/testimony is compelling
evidence in the case of atheists, AND that it's
insubmissible in the case of theists. NORMAL PEOPLE see
this and know that you are a useless crank and NOT
the empirical, science-based person you claim to be.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/search/rubbish

Kevrob

2017-09-07 18:58:40 UTC

Post by JTEM
Your reading comprehension SUCKS...

Post by JTEM
Either you are consistent in your evidence --
what you accept, what weight you give it -- or
you couldn't give a shit less about science.

If you don't believe self-described atheists when they

Your mental illness is fooling you into thinking that
I said something that I never said...
It's not about what you believe, it's what is and is
not "Evidence."
YOU insist that personal claims/testimony is compelling
evidence in the case of atheists, AND that it's
insubmissible in the case of theists. NORMAL PEOPLE see
this and know that you are a useless crank and NOT
the empirical, science-based person you claim to be.

There's a difference between personal testimony about what a person
may or may not believe, and testimony about what said person saw,
heard, otherwise recorded, or even felt.

I'd believe a theist who told me "I believe in {fill in the name of
the ghod, or ghod(z) in general.}

I'm not going to believe one who tells me "ghod spoke to me"
but can't reproduce the experience, has neither sound nor video
recording, or any other kind of non-testimonial evidence.

I don't have to believe you are a jerk-ass troll.
Your posts prove that.

Kevin R

JTEM

2017-09-08 00:48:37 UTC

Like it's unusual for nutters to pretend to
be something they're not...

Post by Kevrob
There's a difference between personal testimony about

The collective regularly insists that by calling
itself an atheists it is making itself [blah blah]
percent smarter. It has ulterior motives.

Now, stop being such a worthless pussy and either
admit that personal testimony IS evidence -- because
it is -- or grow a pair and denounce atheists as
an unsubstantiated claim.

Pick one.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165098190798

Yap Honghor

2017-08-29 23:37:50 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
I know

Please, that's not funny.

You find the knowledge of others to be fascinating???

Post by JTEM
Either you are consistent in your evidence --
what you accept, what weight you give it -- or
you couldn't give a shit less about science.

We atheists care about science a million times than you theists do.

Post by JTEM
You're a partisan, a believer defending his
ideology/faith.

We defend atheism for the sake of humanity.

Post by JTEM
...and even THAT is probably granting you
way too much credit. You portray a partisan,
but for all I know you're some shut-in trolling
for the negative attention that has always passed
for love in his life.

You theists are insane and stupid. Proven so by some studies....ask Mad Joe for such studies.

Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/129378885708

JTEM

2017-09-07 18:43:09 UTC

You

You don't know what my position is. You
read precious few words and understood
even less.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/search/rubbish

Cloud Hobbit

2017-09-07 22:09:05 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
I know

Wrong again. We are people attacking the beliefs of people who claim things that have attacked us for not believing as they do. We ask for specific evidence and proof of what you claim, which is never provided. All we get is the same pitiful lies and strawman bullshit.

If our right to reject gods was not being constantly attacked by shitheads like you, it is doubtful any of us would ever speak to you as you don't seem to care about much of anything we care about.

For all we know, you could be a mental patient abusing the time you get on the PC in the day room.

JTEM

2017-09-08 00:58:42 UTC

Post by Cloud Hobbit
Wrong again. We are

You're a fucking idiot.

It's about evidence, what is and is not evidence.
You, being retarded, say that personal testimony
is NEVER evidence... except in all cases but those
in which you don't want it to be evidence. But
it's NEVER evidence... only it is if you want it to
be.

So personal testimony is NEVER evidence. Except in
courtrooms, where it's rock solid enough to convict
and execute people. And science. Personal testimony
is great for science. And for proving that atheists
exists. But in the case of religious beliefs,
personal testimony can't be evidence and it never was
evidence and it never will be evidence under any
circumstances BECAUSE REASONS.

You're a fucking idiot. You're such a fucking idiot
that you believe hypocrisy is a valid argument.

-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165098190798

Cloud Hobbit

2017-09-08 21:26:01 UTC

Post by Cloud Hobbit
Wrong again. We are

You're a fucking idiot.
It's about evidence, what is and is not evidence.
You, being retarded, say that personal testimony
is NEVER evidence..

Citation needed. I have never said that.
What I have said is that without someone to cross-examine that testimony it can not be taken at face value.

. except in all cases but those

Post by JTEM
in which you don't want it to be evidence. But
it's NEVER evidence... only it is if you want it to
be.

While testimony might be OK sometimes it is not the only evidence that should be considered.

Considering the bible is full of lies, fiction and exaggerations it is not reliable and the testimony in it is unreliable. The testimony of believers these days is not evidence because it can not be tested And there is the very likely chance that it is nothing more than imagination.

Post by JTEM
So personal testimony is NEVER evidence.

Except in

Post by JTEM
courtrooms, where it's rock solid enough to convict
and execute people.

When subject to cross examination and forensic examination of the other evidence.

And science. Personal testimony

Post by JTEM
is great for science.

Science gets tested repeatedly.

And for proving that atheists

Post by JTEM
exists. But in the case of religious beliefs,
personal testimony can't be evidence and it never was
evidence and it never will be evidence under any
circumstances BECAUSE REASONS.

Atheism is not religion.

Post by JTEM
You're a fucking idiot. You're such a fucking idiot
that you believe hypocrisy is a valid argument.

You believe that anything you dream up is true.

I don't care if you think atheists exist or not.
You have proven yourself to be a liar and an asshole so nobody much cares what you think.

Post by JTEM
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/165098190798

Cloud Hobbit

2017-09-16 04:40:36 UTC

If atheists don't exist neither do you.

Cloud Hobbit

2017-09-07 22:01:28 UTC

Post by John Locke
..heh, heh...we exist, I assure you. The evidence is this newsgroup
full of profound atheist thinkers who

You're arguing that personal testimony is evidence.
Honestly, did you not read what I said, or did you
simply fail to understand it?
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164712558663

Lying about being an atheist is like claiming to be gay if you are not, there's nothing to be gained and everything to be lost given the way the general public thinks of atheists and the way religious loonies and redneck assholes feel about gay people.

Unlike you, we don't take positions on anything just be provocative and start arguments over things that have already been firmly established the way you do with the genius of Charles Darwin, one of the most meticulous scientists who ever lived.

Lucifer Morningstar

2017-09-08 04:05:04 UTC

Everything don't exists.

Andrew

2017-08-28 16:57:57 UTC

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.

..heh, heh...we exist, I assure you. The evidence is this newsgroup

Which is the only newsgroup that has its own deity.

"alt.atheism also has its own deity:" ~ from alt.atheism FAQ

Post by John Locke
full of profound atheist thinkers who kick your sorry ass
on a daily basis.

Lol!

Malte Runz

2017-08-28 18:34:39 UTC

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 12:57:57 -0400, "Andrew"

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.

..heh, heh...we exist, I assure you. The evidence is this newsgroup

Which is the only newsgroup that has its own deity.

We have two now. And fairies, too.

Post by Andrew
"alt.atheism also has its own deity:" ~ from alt.atheism FAQ

I know that you know it's satire.

Post by John Locke
full of profound atheist thinkers who kick your sorry ass
on a daily basis.

Lol!

A fake laugh makes you even more pathetic. We make fun of the crazy
things you actually believe in. Like the Flood, angels, resurrection,
creation and, of course, belief in a god. All you can muster in that
department is laughing like an idiot, pointing at the strawman you
created yourself.

--
Malte Runz

hypatiab7

2017-08-31 03:10:15 UTC

Post by Malte Runz
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 12:57:57 -0400, "Andrew"

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.

..heh, heh...we exist, I assure you. The evidence is this newsgroup

Which is the only newsgroup that has its own deity.

We have two now. And fairies, too.

We have five (well 6 if Si& Am are counted separately). Aside from the IPU ( and
FSM we have Maeve, Nirfir and Si and Am. They're all in the newsgroup FAQ/Charter. (Si & Am recently gave me, their High Priestess, a new knowing.
Every year they switch sexes. This year Si is male and Am is female. Next year,
they will switch as they always have. They make this known in the hopes of
helping to end sexual prejudice. They then ran off majestically to leave their
cat god marks of approval in the Great Litterbox In The Sky.)

Post by Malte Runz

Post by Andrew
"alt.atheism also has its own deity:" ~ from alt.atheism FAQ

I know that you know it's satire.

Post by John Locke
full of profound atheist thinkers who kick your sorry ass
on a daily basis.

Lol!

Kevrob

2017-08-29 17:33:43 UTC

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.

..heh, heh...we exist, I assure you. The evidence is this newsgroup

Which is the only newsgroup that has its own deity.

The rec.arts.sf.* hierarchy has multiple deities - "faanish ghods"
as it were, which pre-daye the internet. See:

http://fancyclopedia.org/fantheology

Post by Andrew
"alt.atheism also has its own deity:" ~ from alt.atheism FAQ

It has been pointed out to Spamdrew that these are _PARODY RELIGIONS_....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody_religion

... but he chooses to ignore that.

Post by John Locke
full of profound atheist thinkers who kick your sorry ass
on a daily basis.

Lol!

Laugh, troll, laugh.

Kevin R

Malte Runz

2017-08-29 20:09:35 UTC

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.

..heh, heh...we exist, I assure you. The evidence is this newsgroup

Which is the only newsgroup that has its own deity.

The rec.arts.sf.* hierarchy has multiple deities - "faanish ghods"
http://fancyclopedia.org/fantheology

Post by Andrew
"alt.atheism also has its own deity:" ~ from alt.atheism FAQ

It has been pointed out to Spamdrew that these are _PARODY RELIGIONS_....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody_religion
... but he chooses to ignore that.

He pretends otherwise, but he know they're parodies and satire. The
poor sod has got nothing else he can hit us with. He can't even defend
his own position when challenged... which is every time he opens his
mouth in here.

Post by John Locke
full of profound atheist thinkers who kick your sorry ass
on a daily basis.

Lol!

Laugh, troll, laugh.

It sounded more like a sob. He knows he's acting like an idiot.

--
Malte Runz

Kurt Nicklas

2017-08-29 18:06:04 UTC

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.
Are you a hypocrite?
Are you stupid?
Are you an immature child, parroting "Arguments"
he could never hope to comprehend?
If not, show us the evidence.
WARNING: You are setting a standard here. If personal
claims are evidence, then God exists. If writing are
evidence, then God exists. After all, there's TONS of
such evidence in the case of God.
So, again, are you a hypocrite? Are you stupid? Are
you painfully immature? If not, produce your evidence
for the existence of atheists.

"Smiler" is a pretentious fool.

He's never denied it so that must mean it's true.

Smiler

2017-08-29 23:04:21 UTC

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.
Are you a hypocrite?
Are you stupid?
Are you an immature child, parroting "Arguments"
he could never hope to comprehend?
If not, show us the evidence.
WARNING: You are setting a standard here. If personal claims are
evidence, then God exists. If writing are evidence, then God exists.
After all, there's TONS of such evidence in the case of God.
So, again, are you a hypocrite? Are you stupid? Are you painfully
immature? If not, produce your evidence for the existence of atheists.

"Smiler" is a pretentious fool.
He's never denied it so that must mean it's true.

I do deny it.

--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.

Kurt Nicklas

2017-08-30 16:13:50 UTC

Post by Smiler

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.
Are you a hypocrite?
Are you stupid?
Are you an immature child, parroting "Arguments"
he could never hope to comprehend?
If not, show us the evidence.
WARNING: You are setting a standard here. If personal claims are
evidence, then God exists. If writing are evidence, then God exists.
After all, there's TONS of such evidence in the case of God.
So, again, are you a hypocrite? Are you stupid? Are you painfully
immature? If not, produce your evidence for the existence of atheists.

"Smiler" is a pretentious fool.
He's never denied it so that must mean it's true.

I do deny it.

No matter.

You've accused people who disagree with you of being "child-murdering paedophiles" in a public forum and justified it by claiming they hurt your feelings.

So, yes, you ARE a pretentious fool.

Case proven QED.

hypatiab7

2017-08-30 07:24:02 UTC

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.
Are you a hypocrite?
Are you stupid?
Are you an immature child, parroting "Arguments"
he could never hope to comprehend?
If not, show us the evidence.
WARNING: You are setting a standard here. If personal
claims are evidence, then God exists. If writing are
evidence, then God exists. After all, there's TONS of
such evidence in the case of God.
So, again, are you a hypocrite? Are you stupid? Are
you painfully immature? If not, produce your evidence
for the existence of atheists.

"Smiler" is a pretentious fool.
He's never denied it so that must mean it's true.

Is this the kind of language your religion teaches you to use? You obviously
had nothing to say. That's what you should have done.

Kurt Nicklas

2017-08-30 17:01:17 UTC

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.
Are you a hypocrite?
Are you stupid?
Are you an immature child, parroting "Arguments"
he could never hope to comprehend?
If not, show us the evidence.
WARNING: You are setting a standard here. If personal
claims are evidence, then God exists. If writing are
evidence, then God exists. After all, there's TONS of
such evidence in the case of God.
So, again, are you a hypocrite? Are you stupid? Are
you painfully immature? If not, produce your evidence
for the existence of atheists.

"Smiler" is a pretentious fool.
He's never denied it so that must mean it's true.

Is this the kind of language your religion teaches you to use?

Telling the truth about a foul-mouthed coward? Is that what you have a problem with?

Sorry.

Cloud Hobbit

2017-08-30 18:59:28 UTC

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.
Are you a hypocrite?
Are you stupid?
Are you an immature child, parroting "Arguments"
he could never hope to comprehend?
If not, show us the evidence.
WARNING: You are setting a standard here. If personal
claims are evidence, then God exists. If writing are
evidence, then God exists. After all, there's TONS of
such evidence in the case of God.
So, again, are you a hypocrite? Are you stupid? Are
you painfully immature? If not, produce your evidence
for the existence of atheists.

"Smiler" is a pretentious fool.
He's never denied it so that must mean it's true.

Is this the kind of language your religion teaches you to use?

Telling the truth about a foul-mouthed coward? Is that what you have a problem with?

This is not a discussion of Artyjoe

This is you claiming that there was a serious accusation of pedophilia, which is not the truth.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Sorry.

You should be you lying piece of shit, especially since you know the context.

Kurt Nicklas

2017-08-30 19:25:59 UTC

Post by Cloud Hobbit

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.
Are you a hypocrite?
Are you stupid?
Are you an immature child, parroting "Arguments"
he could never hope to comprehend?
If not, show us the evidence.
WARNING: You are setting a standard here. If personal
claims are evidence, then God exists. If writing are
evidence, then God exists. After all, there's TONS of
such evidence in the case of God.
So, again, are you a hypocrite? Are you stupid? Are
you painfully immature? If not, produce your evidence
for the existence of atheists.

"Smiler" is a pretentious fool.
He's never denied it so that must mean it's true.

Is this the kind of language your religion teaches you to use?

Telling the truth about a foul-mouthed coward? Is that what you have a problem with?

This is not a discussion of Artyjoe

No. It is a discussion of "Smiler".

Post by Cloud Hobbit
This is you claiming that there was a serious accusation of pedophilia, which is not the truth.

He made it repeatedly. He justified it. Over a period of many days. To multiple people. He hasn't apologized. He hasn't denied that he was making a serious accusation. To the contrary.

He's a fool. And so are you for defending him.

Post by Cloud Hobbit

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Sorry.

You should be you lying piece of shit, especially since you know the context.

I'll let anyone with a balanced mind decide the context of this pile of excrement:

"You are a paedophile. I don't know it to be false (how can I?) so it's
not a lie, merely a disagreement."
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 7/22/17

"As you haven't denied that you're a paedophile, I can only assume that you
are one. "
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 8/4/17

"Merely your blind denial, child murdering paedophile"
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 7/23/17

"No it isn't, lying paedophile. "
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 7/23/17

"That's just your blind denial, paedophile."
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 7/25/17

"You are still a child murdering paedophile. "
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 7/30/17

"Only according to your insane delusions, child murdering paedophile."
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 7/31/17

"That would be you, child murdering paedophile. "
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 8/03/17

"You know that you're a child murdering paedophile. "
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 8/03/17

"Still just your sorry excuse for being a paedophile. "
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 7/28/17

"Thanks for admitting that you're a child murdering paedophile."
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 8/03/17

hypatiab7

2017-08-31 03:12:48 UTC

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.
Are you a hypocrite?
Are you stupid?
Are you an immature child, parroting "Arguments"
he could never hope to comprehend?
If not, show us the evidence.
WARNING: You are setting a standard here. If personal
claims are evidence, then God exists. If writing are
evidence, then God exists. After all, there's TONS of
such evidence in the case of God.
So, again, are you a hypocrite? Are you stupid? Are
you painfully immature? If not, produce your evidence
for the existence of atheists.

"Smiler" is a pretentious fool.
He's never denied it so that must mean it's true.

Is this the kind of language your religion teaches you to use?

Telling the truth about a foul-mouthed coward? Is that what you have a problem with?
Sorry.

You're the troll here, Kurtsey. You're the problem. And as the FAQ/Charter says:
Trolls get treated as they deserve.

Kurt Nicklas

2017-08-31 11:37:09 UTC

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.
Are you a hypocrite?
Are you stupid?
Are you an immature child, parroting "Arguments"
he could never hope to comprehend?
If not, show us the evidence.
WARNING: You are setting a standard here. If personal
claims are evidence, then God exists. If writing are
evidence, then God exists. After all, there's TONS of
such evidence in the case of God.
So, again, are you a hypocrite? Are you stupid? Are
you painfully immature? If not, produce your evidence
for the existence of atheists.

"Smiler" is a pretentious fool.
He's never denied it so that must mean it's true.

Is this the kind of language your religion teaches you to use?

Telling the truth about a foul-mouthed coward? Is that what you have a problem with?
Sorry.

Trolls get treated as they deserve.

The way to treat a troll, as every intelligent internet user knows, is to simply ignore them.

If I am a troll, when will you start?

"Merely your blind denial, child murdering paedophile"
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 7/23/17

"No it isn't, lying paedophile. "
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 7/23/17

"That's just your blind denial, paedophile."
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 7/25/17

"You are still a child murdering paedophile. "
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 7/30/17

"Only according to your insane delusions, child murdering paedophile."
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 7/31/17

"That would be you, child murdering paedophile. "
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 8/03/17

"You know that you're a child murdering paedophile. "
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 8/03/17

"Still just your sorry excuse for being a paedophile. "
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 7/28/17

"Thanks for admitting that you're a child murdering paedophile."
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 8/03/17

" I know what I know, paedophile."
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 6/04/17

"Stop lying, paedophile."
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 7/28/17

"Just because nobody can prove you're a paedophile doesn't necessarily mean
that you're a paedophile is unproven."
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 6/04/17

"I have proved that you are a paedophile for too many times."
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 6/25/17

"You are the child murdering paedophile who can't think."
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 8/03/17

"I can't be spiritually blind because I have spiritual evidence that you are a child murdering paedophile."
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 7/03/17

"Exactly like I don't have to prove that you are a paedophile, but you may refute it, if you can."
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 6/08/17

"If you don't even dare to debate your paedophile activities with me, you can't claim that my understanding of them is wrong."
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 6/03/17

"Stop lying, paedophile"
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 7/28/17

"Now the paedophile is pretending to be sane. "
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 8/04/17

MattB

2017-09-07 20:50:44 UTC

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 20:12:48 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.
Are you a hypocrite?
Are you stupid?
Are you an immature child, parroting "Arguments"
he could never hope to comprehend?
If not, show us the evidence.
WARNING: You are setting a standard here. If personal
claims are evidence, then God exists. If writing are
evidence, then God exists. After all, there's TONS of
such evidence in the case of God.
So, again, are you a hypocrite? Are you stupid? Are
you painfully immature? If not, produce your evidence
for the existence of atheists.

"Smiler" is a pretentious fool.
He's never denied it so that must mean it's true.

Is this the kind of language your religion teaches you to use?

Telling the truth about a foul-mouthed coward? Is that what you have a problem with?
Sorry.

Trolls get treated as they deserve.

You mean the FAQ you made up. You did not found this group and the
original FAQ is much better than the militant atheist one you claim to
be real.

You, Michelle Malkin, are just as bad as those you fight against.

Now call me a troll and tell the lurkers to killfile me. That is how
you limit freedom of speech and restrict different views here. Though
you do seem to like the more fundie crazy types they do serve your
agenda and belief system.

hypatiab7

2017-09-12 12:41:34 UTC

Post by MattB
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 20:12:48 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.
Are you a hypocrite?
Are you stupid?
Are you an immature child, parroting "Arguments"
he could never hope to comprehend?
If not, show us the evidence.
WARNING: You are setting a standard here. If personal
claims are evidence, then God exists. If writing are
evidence, then God exists. After all, there's TONS of
such evidence in the case of God.
So, again, are you a hypocrite? Are you stupid? Are
you painfully immature? If not, produce your evidence
for the existence of atheists.

"Smiler" is a pretentious fool.
He's never denied it so that must mean it's true.

Is this the kind of language your religion teaches you to use?

Telling the truth about a foul-mouthed coward? Is that what you have a problem with?
Sorry.

Trolls get treated as they deserve.

You mean the FAQ you made up. You did not found this group and the
original FAQ is much better than the militant atheist one you claim to
be real.

Several members of alt.atheism updated the FAQ/Charter. Much of it is from earlier FAQs. And the changes were agreed to by the atheists here. Trolls
were not asked for their opinions.

Post by MattB
You, Michelle Malkin, are just as bad as those you fight against.

I could say the same about you.

Post by MattB
Now call me a troll and tell the lurkers to killfile me. That is how
you limit freedom of speech and restrict different views here. Though
you do seem to like the more fundie crazy types they do serve your
agenda and belief system.

You're a troll. And, lurkers choose who they want to killfile on their own.
Actually, it sounds more like you are trying to limit my right to express
myself because you don't like what I say. Too bad. I'm not going to write
to please you. And, don't try to bully me. It won't work. It never has
before and it won't now. If anyone wants to know why I dislike you so much,
all they have to do is check out your posting history - especially the first
few months you were in alt.atheism. You gave yourself away as a troll very quickly. And you were very clear about your anger. I hope one or two people will check it out. It should be interesting if they have any comments.

duke

2017-09-12 17:32:26 UTC

Post by MattB
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 20:12:48 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.
Are you a hypocrite?
Are you stupid?
Are you an immature child, parroting "Arguments"
he could never hope to comprehend?
If not, show us the evidence.
WARNING: You are setting a standard here. If personal
claims are evidence, then God exists. If writing are
evidence, then God exists. After all, there's TONS of
such evidence in the case of God.
So, again, are you a hypocrite? Are you stupid? Are
you painfully immature? If not, produce your evidence
for the existence of atheists.

"Smiler" is a pretentious fool.
He's never denied it so that must mean it's true.

Is this the kind of language your religion teaches you to use?

Telling the truth about a foul-mouthed coward? Is that what you have a problem with?
Sorry.

Trolls get treated as they deserve.

You mean the FAQ you made up. You did not found this group and the
original FAQ is much better than the militant atheist one you claim to
be real.

Several members of alt.atheism updated the FAQ/Charter. Much of it is from earlier FAQs. And the changes were agreed to by the atheists here. Trolls
were not asked for their opinions.

1. Then all atheists did not sign it.
2. We theists are grand fathered in.

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

hypatiab7

2017-09-15 10:40:05 UTC

Post by MattB
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 20:12:48 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.
Are you a hypocrite?
Are you stupid?
Are you an immature child, parroting "Arguments"
he could never hope to comprehend?
If not, show us the evidence.
WARNING: You are setting a standard here. If personal
claims are evidence, then God exists. If writing are
evidence, then God exists. After all, there's TONS of
such evidence in the case of God.
So, again, are you a hypocrite? Are you stupid? Are
you painfully immature? If not, produce your evidence
for the existence of atheists.

"Smiler" is a pretentious fool.
He's never denied it so that must mean it's true.

Is this the kind of language your religion teaches you to use?

Telling the truth about a foul-mouthed coward? Is that what you have a problem with?
Sorry.

Trolls get treated as they deserve.

You mean the FAQ you made up. You did not found this group and the
original FAQ is much better than the militant atheist one you claim to
be real.

Several members of alt.atheism updated the FAQ/Charter. Much of it is from earlier FAQs. And the changes were agreed to by the atheists here. Trolls
were not asked for their opinions.

1. Then all atheists did not sign it.
2. We theists are grand fathered in.

This is an atheist newsgroup. Only atheists have a vote. It's always been that way. You, Earl, were never in. You've always been a troll invader. And the FAQ says that trolls get treated as they deserve. It's up to the individual atheists here how they define that. You, as a troll, have no say at all.

Does any atheist here think that Earl (Duke) Weber is not a troll?

duke

2017-09-15 11:18:47 UTC

Post by MattB
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 20:12:48 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.
Are you a hypocrite?
Are you stupid?
Are you an immature child, parroting "Arguments"
he could never hope to comprehend?
If not, show us the evidence.
WARNING: You are setting a standard here. If personal
claims are evidence, then God exists. If writing are
evidence, then God exists. After all, there's TONS of
such evidence in the case of God.
So, again, are you a hypocrite? Are you stupid? Are
you painfully immature? If not, produce your evidence
for the existence of atheists.

"Smiler" is a pretentious fool.
He's never denied it so that must mean it's true.

Is this the kind of language your religion teaches you to use?

Telling the truth about a foul-mouthed coward? Is that what you have a problem with?
Sorry.

Trolls get treated as they deserve.

You mean the FAQ you made up. You did not found this group and the
original FAQ is much better than the militant atheist one you claim to
be real.

Several members of alt.atheism updated the FAQ/Charter. Much of it is from earlier FAQs. And the changes were agreed to by the atheists here. Trolls
were not asked for their opinions.

1. Then all atheists did not sign it.
2. We theists are grand fathered in.

This is an atheist newsgroup. Only atheists have a vote.

No, you don't own this group. You use it to lie. Thus I set the record
straight.

Post by hypatiab7
Does any atheist here think that Earl (Duke) Weber is not a troll?

Lying needs correction.

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

Kevrob

2017-09-15 11:37:16 UTC

Post by hypatiab7
This is an atheist newsgroup. Only atheists have a vote.

No, you don't own this group. You use it to lie. Thus I set the record
straight.

Get stuffed. Your opinion means nothing here.

Post by hypatiab7
Does any atheist here think that Earl (Duke) Weber is not a troll?

100% troll.

Post by duke
Lying needs correction.

Look after your own moral failings, sanctimonious cretin.

[quote] Matt 7

1 'Do not judge, and you will not be judged;

2 because the judgements you give are the judgements you will get, and the standard you use will be the standard used for you.

3 Why do you observe the splinter in your brother's eye and never notice the great log in your own?

4 And how dare you say to your brother, "Let me take that splinter out of your eye," when, look, there is a great log in your own?

5 Hypocrite! Take the log out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly enough to take the splinter out of your brother's eye.

[/quote] http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?bible_chapter=7&id=47

That's what your legends say.

There's a more modern bit of wisdom:

https://xkcd.com/386/

As if anyone rational person would trust you as a judge of truthfulness!

Kevin R

duke

2017-09-15 22:11:25 UTC

Post by hypatiab7
This is an atheist newsgroup. Only atheists have a vote.

No, you don't own this group. You use it to lie. Thus I set the record
straight.

Get stuffed. Your opinion means nothing here.

It condemns your lies.

Post by Kevrob
[quote] Matt 7
1 'Do not judge, and you will not be judged;

I'm not judging which means to apply penalty. I'm just correcting your idiotic
lack of understanding.

the dukester, American-American

*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

Cloud Hobbit

2017-09-15 23:19:40 UTC

Post by hypatiab7
This is an atheist newsgroup. Only atheists have a vote.

No, you don't own this group. You use it to lie. Thus I set the record
straight.

Get stuffed. Your opinion means nothing here.

It condemns your lies.

Post by Kevrob
[quote] Matt 7
1 'Do not judge, and you will not be judged;

I'm not judging which means to apply penalty. I'm just correcting your idiotic
lack of understanding.

And who corrects yours if not us?

Post by duke
the dukester, American Idiot

Cloud Hobbit

2017-09-15 22:01:58 UTC

Post by MattB
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 20:12:48 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.
Are you a hypocrite?
Are you stupid?
Are you an immature child, parroting "Arguments"
he could never hope to comprehend?
If not, show us the evidence.
WARNING: You are setting a standard here. If personal
claims are evidence, then God exists. If writing are
evidence, then God exists. After all, there's TONS of
such evidence in the case of God.
So, again, are you a hypocrite? Are you stupid? Are
you painfully immature? If not, produce your evidence
for the existence of atheists.

"Smiler" is a pretentious fool.
He's never denied it so that must mean it's true.

Is this the kind of language your religion teaches you to use?

Telling the truth about a foul-mouthed coward? Is that what you have a problem with?
Sorry.

Trolls get treated as they deserve.

You mean the FAQ you made up. You did not found this group and the
original FAQ is much better than the militant atheist one you claim to
be real.

Several members of alt.atheism updated the FAQ/Charter. Much of it is from earlier FAQs. And the changes were agreed to by the atheists here. Trolls
were not asked for their opinions.

1. Then all atheists did not sign it.
2. We theists are grand fathered in.

This is an atheist newsgroup. Only atheists have a vote.

No, you don't own this group. You use it to lie. Thus I set the record
straight.

Post by hypatiab7
Does any atheist here think that Earl (Duke) Weber is not a troll?

Lying needs correction.

Aren't you glad we are here then to correct your lies?

Post by duke
the dukester, American Satanist

MattB

2017-09-15 19:18:46 UTC

On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 03:40:05 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7

Post by MattB
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 20:12:48 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.
Are you a hypocrite?
Are you stupid?
Are you an immature child, parroting "Arguments"
he could never hope to comprehend?
If not, show us the evidence.
WARNING: You are setting a standard here. If personal
claims are evidence, then God exists. If writing are
evidence, then God exists. After all, there's TONS of
such evidence in the case of God.
So, again, are you a hypocrite? Are you stupid? Are
you painfully immature? If not, produce your evidence
for the existence of atheists.

"Smiler" is a pretentious fool.
He's never denied it so that must mean it's true.

Is this the kind of language your religion teaches you to use?

Telling the truth about a foul-mouthed coward? Is that what you have a problem with?
Sorry.

Trolls get treated as they deserve.

You mean the FAQ you made up. You did not found this group and the
original FAQ is much better than the militant atheist one you claim to
be real.

Several members of alt.atheism updated the FAQ/Charter. Much of it is from earlier FAQs. And the changes were agreed to by the atheists here. Trolls
were not asked for their opinions.

1. Then all atheists did not sign it.
2. We theists are grand fathered in.

Duke doesn't she sound just like Patrick.

Post by hypatiab7
Does any atheist here think that Earl (Duke) Weber is not a troll?

Duke is a troll and a liar no doubt. The you, Michelle Malkin, are
just like him you lie and then never produce verifiable evidence. That
doesn't seem atheist that seems more like you have religion.

Cloud Hobbit

2017-09-15 22:00:55 UTC

Post by MattB
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 20:12:48 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.
Are you a hypocrite?
Are you stupid?
Are you an immature child, parroting "Arguments"
he could never hope to comprehend?
If not, show us the evidence.
WARNING: You are setting a standard here. If personal
claims are evidence, then God exists. If writing are
evidence, then God exists. After all, there's TONS of
such evidence in the case of God.
So, again, are you a hypocrite? Are you stupid? Are
you painfully immature? If not, produce your evidence
for the existence of atheists.

"Smiler" is a pretentious fool.
He's never denied it so that must mean it's true.

Is this the kind of language your religion teaches you to use?

Telling the truth about a foul-mouthed coward? Is that what you have a problem with?
Sorry.

Trolls get treated as they deserve.

You mean the FAQ you made up. You did not found this group and the
original FAQ is much better than the militant atheist one you claim to
be real.

Several members of alt.atheism updated the FAQ/Charter. Much of it is from earlier FAQs. And the changes were agreed to by the atheists here. Trolls
were not asked for their opinions.

1. Then all atheists did not sign it.
2. We theists are grand fathered in.

This is an atheist newsgroup. Only atheists have a vote. It's always been that way. You, Earl, were never in. You've always been a troll invader. And the FAQ says that trolls get treated as they deserve. It's up to the individual atheists here how they define that. You, as a troll, have no say at all.
Does any atheist here think that Earl (Duke) Weber is not a troll?

He is the village idiot of trolls although sometimes he shares that job with JTEM or Mad Joe.

MattB

2017-09-12 19:02:07 UTC

On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 05:41:34 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7

Post by MattB
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 20:12:48 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.
Are you a hypocrite?
Are you stupid?
Are you an immature child, parroting "Arguments"
he could never hope to comprehend?
If not, show us the evidence.
WARNING: You are setting a standard here. If personal
claims are evidence, then God exists. If writing are
evidence, then God exists. After all, there's TONS of
such evidence in the case of God.
So, again, are you a hypocrite? Are you stupid? Are
you painfully immature? If not, produce your evidence
for the existence of atheists.

"Smiler" is a pretentious fool.
He's never denied it so that must mean it's true.

Is this the kind of language your religion teaches you to use?

Telling the truth about a foul-mouthed coward? Is that what you have a problem with?
Sorry.

Trolls get treated as they deserve.

You mean the FAQ you made up. You did not found this group and the
original FAQ is much better than the militant atheist one you claim to
be real.

Several members of alt.atheism updated the FAQ/Charter. Much of it is from earlier FAQs. And the changes were agreed to by the atheists here. Trolls
were not asked for their opinions.

Then the your Charter wasn't put up for vote from the posters here in
general just those you choose to accept, It isn't valid.

Do you have a count of those that agreed? Were the real founder
notified? Why didn't you just form a moderated group as that seems to
be your goal?

Post by MattB
You, Michelle Malkin, are just as bad as those you fight against.

I could say the same about you.

I do have my moments. I normally reply in kind and have good
conversations both here and by e-mail with atheist, In fact some good
friends are atheist. In fact one helps at a church run food bank and
puts up Christmas decorations just none that are religious.

You're a troll. And, lurkers choose who they want to killfile on their own.

That is how it should be. I do ignore people but killfile few.

Post by hypatiab7
Actually, it sounds more like you are trying to limit my right to express
myself because you don't like what I say. Too bad. I'm not going to write
to please you.

Good if everyone wrote to please me I'd find the NG boring. I like
different opinions.

Post by hypatiab7
And, don't try to bully me. It won't work. It never has
before and it won't now.

I have no intention of bully you. I post a reply in kind.

Post by hypatiab7
If anyone wants to know why I dislike you so much,
all they have to do is check out your posting history - especially the first
few months you were in alt.atheism. You gave yourself away as a troll very quickly. And you were very clear about your anger. I hope one or two people will check it out. It should be interesting if they have any comments.

I hope they do as well and hope they also see I replied in kind you
and your group of control freaks. Hope they notice how angry you go
when I refused to obey your militant/New atheist FAQ you made up.

You always call for people to provide evidence that you lie by the
evidence in your beliefs. OK then show this evidence that I use
multiple MYMS you say I am the poster "!! Atheist
------------------------------". Provide some evidence and don't
expect people to believe you through faith. I say you lie and lie.

Stop lying and we will have no problem as I don't proselytize. You
just apply your standard of your belief to include Politics and
beyond.

Why do you attack when people are talking politics also?

hypatiab7

2017-09-15 11:33:02 UTC

Post by MattB
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 05:41:34 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7

Post by MattB
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 20:12:48 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.
Are you a hypocrite?
Are you stupid?
Are you an immature child, parroting "Arguments"
he could never hope to comprehend?
If not, show us the evidence.
WARNING: You are setting a standard here. If personal
claims are evidence, then God exists. If writing are
evidence, then God exists. After all, there's TONS of
such evidence in the case of God.
So, again, are you a hypocrite? Are you stupid? Are
you painfully immature? If not, produce your evidence
for the existence of atheists.

"Smiler" is a pretentious fool.
He's never denied it so that must mean it's true.

Is this the kind of language your religion teaches you to use?

Telling the truth about a foul-mouthed coward? Is that what you have a problem with?
Sorry.

Trolls get treated as they deserve.

You mean the FAQ you made up. You did not found this group and the
original FAQ is much better than the militant atheist one you claim to
be real.

Several members of alt.atheism updated the FAQ/Charter. Much of it is from earlier FAQs. And the changes were agreed to by the atheists here. Trolls
were not asked for their opinions.

Then the your Charter wasn't put up for vote from the posters here in
general just those you choose to accept, It isn't valid.

It was put up for a vote for all the atheists here after everyone was asked for comments pro and con. This is an atheist newsgroup. Only atheists vote.

Post by MattB
Do you have a count of those that agreed? Were the real founder
notified? Why didn't you just form a moderated group as that seems to
be your goal?

Post by MattB
You, Michelle Malkin, are just as bad as those you fight against.

All you do is belly ache against those you don't like here. You aren't an
atheist. You have no vote. If you want to protest, feel free to set up
a poll and see how everyone feels about your gripe.

Post by hypatiab7
I could say the same about you.

You're a troll. And, lurkers choose who they want to killfile on their own.

That is how it should be. I do ignore people but killfile few.

Post by hypatiab7
Actually, it sounds more like you are trying to limit my right to express
myself because you don't like what I say. Too bad. I'm not going to write
to please you.

Good if everyone wrote to please me I'd find the NG boring. I like
different opinions.

Post by hypatiab7
And, don't try to bully me. It won't work. It never has
before and it won't now.

I have no intention of bully you. I post a reply in kind.

That isn't what your posting history shows. Anyone can check that out if they're
really interested.

I hope they do as well and hope they also see I replied in kind you
and your group of control freaks. Hope they notice how angry you go
when I refused to obey your militant/New atheist FAQ you made up.
You always call for people to provide evidence that you lie by the
evidence in your beliefs. OK then show this evidence that I use
multiple MYMS you say I am the poster "!! Atheist
------------------------------". Provide some evidence and don't
expect people to believe you through faith. I say you lie and lie.

!!Atheist sounds just like you and slips in anti-atheist attacks very sneakily just like you. If he isn't you, I'll be very surprised.

Post by MattB
Stop lying and we will have no problem as I don't proselytize. You
just apply your standard of your belief to include Politics and
beyond.
Why do you attack when people are talking politics also?

It's called disagreeing. You never could understand that. You insist on people agreeing with yo or you get very upset.

MattB

2017-09-15 19:16:00 UTC

On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 04:33:02 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7

Post by MattB
On Tue, 12 Sep 2017 05:41:34 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7

Post by MattB
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 20:12:48 -0700 (PDT), hypatiab7

If there was evidence, there would be no debate.

Show us the evidence for the existence of atheists.
Are you a hypocrite?
Are you stupid?
Are you an immature child, parroting "Arguments"
he could never hope to comprehend?
If not, show us the evidence.
WARNING: You are setting a standard here. If personal
claims are evidence, then God exists. If writing are
evidence, then God exists. After all, there's TONS of
such evidence in the case of God.
So, again, are you a hypocrite? Are you stupid? Are
you painfully immature? If not, produce your evidence
for the existence of atheists.

"Smiler" is a pretentious fool.
He's never denied it so that must mean it's true.

Is this the kind of language your religion teaches you to use?

Telling the truth about a foul-mouthed coward? Is that what you have a problem with?
Sorry.

Trolls get treated as they deserve.

You mean the FAQ you made up. You did not found this group and the
original FAQ is much better than the militant atheist one you claim to
be real.

Several members of alt.atheism updated the FAQ/Charter. Much of it is from earlier FAQs. And the changes were agreed to by the atheists here. Trolls
were not asked for their opinions.

Then the your Charter wasn't put up for vote from the posters here in
general just those you choose to accept, It isn't valid.

It was put up for a vote for all the atheists here after everyone was asked for comments pro and con. This is an atheist newsgroup. Only atheists vote.

Then you get to decide who is worthy of being called a atheist and
those who aren't? Did you use the definition of atheist from the
original FAQ?

Post by MattB
Do you have a count of those that agreed? Were the real founder
notified? Why didn't you just form a moderated group as that seems to
be your goal?

Post by MattB
You, Michelle Malkin, are just as bad as those you fight against.

All you do is belly ache against those you don't like here. You aren't an
atheist. You have no vote. If you want to protest, feel free to set up
a poll and see how everyone feels about your gripe.

No we talk of politics and such and you jump in with your ad hominem
about my using other Nyms. I ask for evidence and your ***@m.nu
jumps in. I do not like extremist be they theist or atheist, that is
true. You are a proven liar so think the same of you as I do Duke.

Post by hypatiab7
I could say the same about you.

You're a troll. And, lurkers choose who they want to killfile on their own.

That is how it should be. I do ignore people but killfile few.

Post by hypatiab7
Actually, it sounds more like you are trying to limit my right to express
myself because you don't like what I say. Too bad. I'm not going to write
to please you.

Good if everyone wrote to please me I'd find the NG boring. I like
different opinions.

Post by hypatiab7
And, don't try to bully me. It won't work. It never has
before and it won't now.

I have no intention of bully you. I post a reply in kind.

That isn't what your posting history shows. Anyone can check that out if they're
really interested.

Yes they can. I welcome that. Reason, logic and truth should be in
the evidence.

I hope they do as well and hope they also see I replied in kind you
and your group of control freaks. Hope they notice how angry you go
when I refused to obey your militant/New atheist FAQ you made up.
You always call for people to provide evidence that you lie by the
evidence in your beliefs. OK then show this evidence that I use
multiple MYMS you say I am the poster "!! Atheist
------------------------------". Provide some evidence and don't
expect people to believe you through faith. I say you lie and lie.

!!Atheist sounds just like you and slips in anti-atheist attacks very sneakily just like you. If he isn't you, I'll be very surprised.

So we are to believe you by faith are you a prophet of atheism? I did
look at the guys post I welcome people to compare writing styles and
such.

Michelle Malkin has again shown she will lie in the same manner as Z.